[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 2, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9781-9790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-4464]



[[Page 9781]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL-7628-9]
RIN 2040-AE58


National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Minor Corrections 
and Clarification to Drinking Water Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule proposes minor changes to clarify and correct the 
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Drinking Water regulations. 
This proposal would clarify typographical errors, inadvertent 
omissions, editorial errors, and outdated language in the final Long 
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR), the Surface 
Water Treatment Rule, and other rules. In addition to these 
clarifications, EPA is proposing optional monitoring for disinfection 
profiling and an earlier compliance date for some requirements in the 
LT1ESWTR, and a detection limit for the Uranium Methods. These three 
changes are discussed first. This action proposes no new monitoring or 
reporting requirements.

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or 
through hand delivery/courier. Send comments to: Water Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-
0066. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section I.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone (800) 426-4791. The Safe 
Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., eastern time. For technical 
inquiries, contact Tracy Bone, Office of Ground Water and Drinking 
Water (MC 4607), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-
5257.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Who Is Regulated by This Action?

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are public water 
systems (PWS). The following table provides examples of the regulated 
entities under this rule. A public water system, as defined by section 
1401 of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is ``a system for the provision 
to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other 
constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service 
connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals.'' EPA defines 
``regularly served'' as receiving water from the system 60 or more days 
per year. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action 
include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Examples of potentially
                Category                        regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, Tribal and Local Government.....  State, Tribal or local
                                          government-owned/operated
                                          water supply systems using
                                          ground water, surface water or
                                          mixed ground water and surface
                                          water.
Federal Government.....................  Federally owned/operated
                                          community water supply systems
                                          using ground water, surface
                                          water or mixed ground water
                                          and surface water.
Industry...............................  Privately owned/operated
                                          community water supply systems
                                          using ground water, surface
                                          water or mixed ground water
                                          and surface water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in Sec. Sec.  141.2 and 141.3 of title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. OW-2003-0066. The official public docket consists of the 
documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments 
received, and other information related to this action. Although a part 
of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of 
materials that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in 
the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 
566-2426. If you would like to schedule an appointment for access to 
docket material, please call (202) 566-2426.
2. Electronic Access
    You may access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at 
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' 
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all 
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access 
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket 
facility identified in section I.B.1.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment

[[Page 9782]]

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the 
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are 
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after 
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not 
required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA 
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail 
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also 
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM 
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. 
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment 
and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance 
of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, 
and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a 
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment.
    a. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. 
OW-2003-0066. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means 
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    b. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OW-2003-0066. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    c. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that 
you mail to the mailing address identified in section I.C.2. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail
    Send an original and three copies of your comments and any 
enclosures to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 
4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 
Docket ID No. OW-2003-0066.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    Deliver your comments to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC, Attention Docket ID No. OW-2002-0066. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in 
section I.B.1.

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. Changes and Clarifications

    Today's notice proposes clarifications of typographical errors, 
outdated language, editorial errors and inadvertent omissions in the 
text of the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
(LT1ESWTR), the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), and other rules. 
Each clarification is discussed under the heading of the drinking water 
rule that it amends (e.g., LT1ESWTR).
    In addition to these clarifications, EPA is proposing optional 
monitoring for disinfection profiling and an earlier compliance date 
for some requirements in the LT1ESWTR, and a detection limit for the 
Uranium Methods. These three changes are discussed first.

A. LT1ESWTR Compliance Date Change and Optional Monitoring for 
Disinfection Profiling

    The Final LT1ESWTR was published on January 14, 2002 (67 FR 1812). 
In Sec.  141.502, of the LT1ESWTR, EPA directed PWSs to ``comply with 
these requirements in this subpart beginning January 14, 2005, except 
where otherwise noted.'' In today's rule, EPA proposes to change the 
compliance date from January 14, 2005, to January 1, 2005, in Sec.  
141.502 as well as in endnote 8 of subpart Q, Appendix B.
    As stated in both Sec.  141.73 (the Surface Water Treatment Rule) 
and Sec.  141.551 (LT1ESWTR), systems must meet a specified turbidity 
limit ``in at least 95 percent of the turbidity measurements taken each 
month.'' Under SWTR, which is currently effective, this limit is 0.5 
NTU. Under LT1ESWTR, which will be effective in January 2005, this 
limit is 0.3 NTU. With the current LT1ESWTR date, the month of January 
2005 has two specified turbidity limits that the system would have to 
meet in the measurements taken that month

[[Page 9783]]

(one for the SWTR and one for the LT1ESWTR).
    In addition, the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) requires 
community water systems to produce reports containing data collected in 
a calendar year (Sec.  141.152(b)). Specifically regarding turbidity, 
the CCR requires reporting of ``the highest single measurement and the 
lowest monthly percentage of samples meeting the turbidity limits 
specified in Sec.  141.73 or Sec.  141.173 or Sec.  141.551 for the 
filtration technology being used.'' See Sec.  141.153(d)(4)(v)(C). 
Shifting the compliance date of the LT1ESWTR to January 1, 2005, allows 
systems to report only one specified turbidity limit for calendar year 
2005 (versus two under the current compliance date) thus easing 
implementation and readability of the CCR.
    In general, regulations promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act (SDWA) are implemented 3 years after the date of promulgation. 
Section 1412(b)(10) directs EPA to make national primary drinking water 
regulations ``take effect on the date that is 3 years after the date on 
which the regulation is promulgated unless the Administrator determines 
that an earlier date is practicable. * * *'' For the reasons stated 
earlier, EPA is proposing to move this date 2 weeks earlier than the 3 
year time frame. EPA believes it is practicable for PWSs to meet this 
earlier date. For the combined filter effluent requirements, systems 
will not need to install any new equipment because systems are already 
monitoring their combined filter effluent. For the individual filter 
effluent requirements, systems will need to install new equipment--
turbidimeters, but they are readily available. In addition, EPA 
considered the benefits of moving the compliance date to January 1, 
2005, in concluding that this two week shift in the date is 
practicable. EPA is also changing the date in the public notification 
rule, subpart Q Appendix B, endnote 8--to be consistent with the new 
compliance date of the LT1SWTR. By changing Sec.  141.502, the 
following 12 requirements will have a compliance deadline of January 1, 
2005: Sec. Sec.  141.520, 141.521, 141.522, 141.550, 141.551, 141.552, 
141.553, 141.560, 141.561, 141.562, 141.563, and 141.564. July 1, 2003 
(or January 1, 2004, for systems serving fewer than 500 persons), 
remains the compliance date for Sec. Sec.  141.530-536. March 15, 2002, 
remains the compliance date for Sec. Sec.  141.511.
    In addition to changing the compliance date, EPA is proposing to 
add a sentence to Sec.  141.531 to clarify that States may approve a 
more representative TTHM and HAA5 data set (optional monitoring) to 
avoid the disinfection profile monitoring required in Sec.  141.530. 
EPA's intent was to allow this flexibility as evidenced by the 
discussion in the preamble (67 FR 1820, January 14, 2002) which states 
``EPA agrees that systems and States should be allowed the opportunity 
to use more representative samples, and today's final rule affords 
States the opportunity to allow more representative data for optional 
monitoring and profiling.'' In addition, States are required in Sec.  
142.16(j)(2)(i) to describe as part of their primacy applications how 
they will ``approve a more representative data set for optional TTHM 
and HAA5 monitoring.'' Section 142.16(j) is being redesignated as Sec.  
142.16(p), see discussion in II.D, please refer to the rule as 
promulgated, 67 FR 1820, January 14, 2002. EPA would not have required 
States to describe their procedure if EPA did not also intend to allow 
a more representative data set for optional TTHM and HAA5 monitoring. 
While EPA's intent was to allow this flexibility, EPA failed to make 
this flexibility explicit in the regulation. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to correct Sec.  141.531 to explicitly allow States to 
approve a more representative TTHM and HAA5 data set by adding the 
sentence ``Your State may approve a more representative TTHM and HAA5 
data set to determine these levels.''

B. Detection Limit for Compliance Monitoring of Uranium

    EPA is proposing to specify a detection limit for compliance 
determinations of uranium in drinking water at one microgram per liter 
(1 [mu]g/L) to ease the monitoring burden on public water systems. This 
amendment is needed for systems to take advantage of the initial 
monitoring and repeat monitoring waiver provisions at Sec.  
141.26(a)(3)(i). For gross alpha, radium-226, radium-228 or uranium, 
these provisions provide the flexibility for the State to waive the 
final two quarters of initial monitoring at a sampling point if the 
results of the samples from the previous two quarters are below the 
detection limit for a radionuclide. Also, the repeat monitoring 
frequency will decrease to once every 9 years for entry points which 
are below detection.
    The December 7, 2000, final Radionuclides Rule (65 FR 76708) 
included a detection limit for gross alpha, radium-226 and radium-228, 
and reserved a place for a uranium detection limit in Table B at Sec.  
141.25(c)(1). EPA did not specify a detection limit in the December 
2000 final rule for uranium because no detection limit was discussed in 
the 1991 rule that proposed maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) and 
monitoring requirements for several radionuclides (56 FR 33050, July 
18, 1991). However, the preamble of the December 2000 final rule states 
that EPA would ``propose a detection limit for uranium in a future 
rulemaking before the compliance date of this rule'' (65 FR 76724). 
Commenters on this issue stated that EPA should be consistent with 
other regulated radionuclides and set a detection limit for uranium 
that is consistent with the sensitivity measures used for other 
radionuclides (65 FR 76724).
    In today's action, EPA is proposing to amend Table B at Sec.  
141.25(c)(1) to add a detection limit of 1 [mu]g/L for uranium. EPA is 
proposing the detection limit as 1 [mu]g/L because it is achievable by 
all current and proposed methods, within the capability of a 
substantial majority of laboratories, and well below the MCL of 30 
[mu]g/L. Establishing a uranium detection limit permits States the 
flexibility to substantially reduce the number of compliance samples 
and the frequency of repeat monitoring for uranium. For systems with 
initial monitoring results below detection for two quarters, repeat 
monitoring would be reduced to a nine-year frequency. Accordingly, EPA 
believes that a 1 [mu]g/L detection limit serves two purposes: It 
assures a reliable measurement technique is used and allows systems 
with a fraction, i.e. less than one-thirtieth of the MCL, to reduce 
their monitoring frequency. EPA requests that commenters suggesting any 
other detection limit provide any available research, testing results, 
data, or other information that supports an alternative approach.

C. Radionuclide Rule Clarifications

    In addition to proposing a detection limit for uranium, EPA 
proposes to make two clarifications to the final Radionuclide Rule 
(December 7, 2000, 65 FR 76708). In Sec.  141.26(b)(2)(iv), EPA 
proposes to add ``screening level'' to the first sentence. (Note also, 
that the second ``beta'' in this sentence is a typographical error, and 
under today's rule would be removed.) With these revisions, the 
sentence will read, ``If the gross beta particle activity minus the 
naturally occurring potassium-40 beta particle activity at a sampling 
point has a running annual average (computed quarterly) less than or 
equal to 15 pCi/L (screening level), the State may reduce the frequency 
of monitoring at that sampling point to every 3 years.'' This clarifies 
that the 15 pCi/L is a screening

[[Page 9784]]

level for systems just as 50 pCi/L is a screening level for systems in 
Sec.  141.26(b)(1)(i) (see 65 FR 76726). These are the same two 
numerical screening levels that were in effect for many years in the 
1976 rule; EPA intended to retain them. Similarly, EPA proposes to 
clarify in 141.26(b)(5), that there are two screening levels by adding 
the word ``appropriate'' to the first sentence so that it reads 
``...exceeds the appropriate screening level...''.
    In Sec.  141.26(b)(6), EPA proposes to revise the citation 
``(b)(1)(ii)'' to read ``(b)(1)(i)'', and revise citation ``(b)(2)(i)'' 
to read ``(b)(2)(iv).'' These were typographical errors and should have 
been (b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(iv) which refer to meeting the screening 
level requirements until the system meets the requirements for reduced 
monitoring.

D. LT1ESWTR Clarifications

    In addition to changing the date in Sec.  141.502 to reduce 
monitoring burden as well as to allow States to approve alternative 
data sets for optional monitoring in Sec.  141.531, EPA is proposing to 
clarify typographical errors in the final LT1ESWTR. In subpart Q 
Appendix B, in endnotes 4 and 8, the year of publication for the Long 
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule is incorrectly identified 
as 2001 when it should be 2002. Also in endnote 4, the word ``monthly'' 
is misspelled.
    In Sec.  141.530 EPA is proposing to remove the grammatically 
incorrect, plural ``s'' from ``systems'' in the sentence ``If you are a 
subpart H community or non-transient non-community water systems which 
serves fewer * * * ''
    Section 141.534 has two typographical errors. In the introductory 
paragraph for Sec.  141.534, EPA inadvertently omitted a reference to 
Sec.  141.74(b)(3)(v), which provides tables for determining the 
appropriate CT99.9 value to calculate the inactivation ratio. These 
tables for CT99.9 are referred to in other drinking water regulations 
(for example, see the IESWTR, Sec.  141.172(b)(2)). EPA proposes to 
change the introductory paragraph of Sec.  141.534 to: ``Use the tables 
in Sec.  141.74(b)(3)(v) to determine the appropriate CT99.9 value. 
Calculate the total inactivation ratio as follows, and multiply the 
value by 3.0 to determine log inactivation of Giardia lamblia:''
    In the table in Sec.  141.534(a)(2), EPA proposes to change the 
``3'' to ``[Sigma]'' in the CT calculation formula. EPA inadvertently 
changed the ``[Sigma]'' to a ``3'' during a text file conversion. This 
clarification will assure consistency with the IESWTR, see Sec.  
141.172(b)(4)(i)(B).
    In Sec.  141.551(a)(2), EPA proposes to add a ``t'' to the ``no'' 
in ``A value determined by the State (no to exceed 1 NTU) * * * '' In 
Sec.  141.551(b)(2), EPA proposes to add the word ``Filtration'' to the 
phrase ``All other ``Alternative'' which will match related language in 
Sec.  141.551(a)(2).
    In the table in Sec.  141.563(b), the last sentence in the second 
column is redundant. The last sentence reads: ``If a self-assessment is 
required, the date that it was triggered and the date that it was 
completed.'' EPA proposes to delete this sentence. This sentence is 
properly included in the description of reporting requirements in the 
table in Sec.  141.570(b)(3) but should not be included in the 
regulation describing a follow-up action that a system must take if it 
exceeds a turbidity limit. Also in the same table in Sec.  141.563(c), 
the first column contains a typographical error. The acronym ``BTU'' 
should read ``NTU'' (Nephelometric Turbidity Units).
    In the table in Sec.  141.570(b)(2) there is an omission. EPA is 
proposing to add the phrase: ``and the cause (if known) for the 
exceedance(s)'' to the description of information to report under Sec.  
141.570(b)(2). As a result, the entire paragraph would read: ``The 
filter number(s), corresponding date(s), and the turbidity value(s) 
which exceeded 1.0 NTU during the month, and the cause (if known) for 
the exceedance(s), but only if 2 consecutive measurements exceeded 1.0 
NTU.'' This will make the wording in the table at 141.570(b)(2) 
consistent with 141.563(a).
    In the LT1ESWTR, EPA placed the special primacy requirements for 
States in Sec.  142.16 (j), however that paragraph designation was 
already reserved for a previously promulgated (though not yet 
effective) drinking water rule (66 FR 6976, January 22, 2001). This 
action proposes to redesignate the LT1ESWTR special primacy text as 
Sec.  142.16(p). In addition, EPA proposes to revise a citation in 
142.(p)(2)(ii) to ``141.536'' to read ``141.535.'' This was a 
typographical error and should have been ``141.535'' which refers to 
calculating inactivation.

E. Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

    The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule was 
promulgated on December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69390). This rule required 
systems to measure and report, among other things, violations of 
maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs), see 141.134(c)(1)(iv) 
(see 63 FR 69422 and 69472). However, EPA failed to add compliance with 
the applicable MRDL to the compliance requirements in Sec.  
141.133(a)(3). EPA proposes to correct this. The language in Sec.  
141.133(a)(3) would now read ``If, during the first year of monitoring 
under Sec.  141.132, any individual quarter's average will cause the 
running annual average of that system to exceed the MCL for total 
trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids (five), or bromate; or the MRDL for 
chlorine or chloramine, the system is out of compliance at the end of 
that quarter.'' The burden for this requirement was already accounted 
for in the approved Information Collection Request No. 1895.02.
    Also, in the final Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection 
Byproducts Rule, EPA incorrectly cited in Sec.  142.14(d)(12)(iv) and 
142.14(d)(13) a reference to 142.16(f). The reference for both sections 
should be Sec.  142.16(h)(2) and Sec.  142.16(h)(5) respectively. 
Section 142.16 (f)(2) refers to reports required under the Consumer 
Confidence Report Rule; however, Sec. Sec.  142.14(d)(12)(iv) and 
142.14(d)(13) clearly intend to refer the reader to requirements 
concerning disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts.

F. Surface Water Treatment Rule

    The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) was promulgated on June 29, 
1989 (54 FR 27486). In that final rule, EPA incorrectly cited in Sec.  
141.74(b)(4)(ii) a reference to Sec.  142.72(a). This citation should 
read Sec.  141.72(a), which refers to disinfection requirements for 
public water systems rather than requirements for tribal eligibility 
(Sec.  142.72(a)).
    Also, EPA is proposing to clarify requirements concerning the 
calibration of turbidimeters in Sec. Sec.  141.174(a) (IESWTR) and in 
141.560(b) (LT1ESWTR) by adding the phrase already used in Sec.  
141.74(a)(1), ``using analytical test procedures contained in Technical 
Notes on Drinking Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994.'' 
Section 141.174(a) would now end, ``must calibrate turbidimeters using 
the procedure specified by the manufacturer and by using analytical 
test procedures contained in Technical Notes on Drinking Water Methods, 
EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994.'' Section 141.560(b) would have 
equivalent language so that it now ends, ``must calibrate turbidimeters 
using the procedure specified by the manufacturer and by using 
analytical test procedures contained in Technical Notes on Drinking 
Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994.''
    EPA proposes to change all citations to Sec.  141.74(a)(3) or (4) 
to Sec.  141.74(a)(1), and all citations to Sec.  141.74(a)(5) to

[[Page 9785]]

Sec.  141.74(a)(2). The SWTR, as published in 1989, had paragraphs 
Sec.  141.74(a)(3)-(7). The original (a)(3) described HPC methods, 
(a)(4) described turbidity methods, (a)(5) described residual 
disinfectant concentration methods, (a)(6) described temperature 
methods, and (a)(7) described pH methods. On December 5, 1994 (59 FR 
62470), EPA revised the SWTR at Sec.  141.74. In that rule, EPA revised 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and removed paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(7). 
EPA subsequently modified Sec.  141.74(a)(1) by moving the temperature 
method listed in the table Sec.  141.74(a)(1) to the text of Sec.  
141.74(a)(1) (June 29, 1995, 60 FR 34086). As a result of these two 
notices (1994 and 1995) the requirements in (a)(1)-(7) were all 
combined into paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), however; EPA failed to make 
corresponding changes to the following cross references elsewhere in 
part 141:

        Table 1.--References to the Surface Water Treatment Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  SWTR provisions with incorrect cross
               references                       Proposed amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
141.71(a)(2)...........................  ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.71(c)(2)(i)........................  ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.72(a)(3)...........................  ``(a)(5)'' to (a)(2)
141.72(a)(4)(i)........................  ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1) and
                                          ``(a)(5)'' to (a)(2)
141.72(a)(4)(ii).......................  ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.72(b)(2)...........................  ``(a)(5)'' to (a)(2)
141.72(b)(3)(i)........................  ``(a)(5)'' to (a)(2) and,
                                          ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.72(b)(3)(ii).......................  ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(a)(1)...........................  ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(a)(2)...........................  ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(b)(1)...........................  ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(b)(2)...........................  ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(c)(1)...........................  ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.73(c)(2)...........................  ``(a)(4)'' to (a)(1)
141.74(b)(6)(ii).......................  ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.74(c)(3)(i)........................  ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.74(c)(3)(ii).......................  ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.75(a)(2)(viii)(G)..................  ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
141.75(b)(2)(iii)(G)...................  ``(a)(3)'' to (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Filter Backwash Recycling Rule

    The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) was promulgated on June 
8, 2001 (66 FR 31086). EPA inadvertently provided incomplete citations 
in subpart Q, Appendix A of the Public Notification rule for the FBRR 
violations. In entry I.A.(8) of 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q, Appendix A, 
EPA is proposing to add a ``(c)'' to the ``MCL/MRDL/TT violations 
Citation'' column of Sec.  141.76; and, in the ``Monitoring & testing 
procedure violations Citation'' column EPA is proposing to add ``(b), 
(d)'' to Sec.  141.76. This will clarify which FBRR violations require 
public notice and what type of notice is required.
    The FBRR preamble (66 FR 31086, 31094) explicitly states that 
violations of the recordkeeping and reporting portions of this 
treatment technique trigger public notification (PN) obligations under 
40 CFR part 141, subpart Q. Normally, recordkeeping and reporting 
violations do not trigger PN. The preamble to the PN rule, as well as 
the rule text, state that reporting and recordkeeping violations do not 
trigger PN. For example, see Sec.  141, subpart Q, Appendix A, Endnote 
1. Moreover, the table listing categories of violations that trigger 
PN--Sec.  141.201 Table 1--does not list reporting or recordkeeping. 
However, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the FBRR are 
an integral part of the treatment technique itself and thus do trigger 
PN.
    EPA is clarifying this by making the following changes to the PN 
rule: striking the reference to reporting violations in Appendix A, 
endnote 1, and explicitly adding Sec. Sec.  141.76(b), (c) and (d) to 
the list of categories requiring reporting in Appendix A (current 
references are just to Sec.  141.76). These changes will harmonize the 
two rules/preambles and help to clarify where the FBRR recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements fit under the list of categories in Sec.  
141.201 Table 1.

H. Bottled Water

    In a November 1995 final rule (60 FR 57132), the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) moved their standards of quality for bottled water 
from Sec.  103.35 (21 CFR 103.35) to Sec.  165.110. EPA proposes to 
correct a reference in our regulations in Sec.  142.62(g)(2) to this 
updated citation of these FDA regulations.

I. Information Collection Rule

    The Information Collection Rule (ICR) was promulgated on May 14, 
1996 (61 FR 24354). The requirements promulgated in the ICR expired on 
December 31, 2000. As a result, the ICR requirements (referred to as 
subpart M--Information Collection Requirements (ICRs) for Public Water 
Systems) were removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2001. 
However, there are remaining references to the data collected as a 
result of the ICR in other sections of part 141 that refer to ``subpart 
M''. EPA proposes to delete, ``or subpart M of this part'' from Sec.  
141.132(a)(5). EPA is not proposing to delete or revise the other 
references to subpart M because the data collected under the ICR are 
still being used.

J. Phase V Rule

    In the final Phase V Rule (July 17, 1992, 57 FR 31776), EPA 
published a list of Best Available Technologies (BATs) for cyanide, see 
Sec.  141.62(c). Subsequently, EPA identified the need for a rule 
revision relating to one of the three BATs for cyanide, specifically 
chlorine. EPA should have been more specific (see 57 FR 31089 of the 
final rule and 55 FR 30419 of the proposed rule (July 25, 1990, 55 FR 
30370)) as to the type of chlorination and instead listed ``alkaline 
chlorination.'' EPA discussed this issue in a public memorandum, 
``Public Water System Warning'' Memo, March 7, 1994. EPA also listed 
``alkaline chlorination'' rather than chlorination in the Small System 
Compliance Technology List for the Non-microbial Contaminants Regulated 
Before 1996, see August 6, 1998, 63 FR 42039, Table 4 and 5. EPA 
proposes to delete the ``10'' (code for chlorination) from the cyanide 
BAT list and replace

[[Page 9786]]

it with ``13'' (new code for alkaline chlorination). In addition, the 
new code for alkaline chlorination is added to the table key.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review. The Order defines ``significant 
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to Executive Order 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
This action modifies and clarifies existing regulations. It does not 
add monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.
    The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed 
in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions.
    The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. 
It also authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each 
category of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the activities of 
the agency'' after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the 
Federal Register and taking comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition 
to the above, to establish an alternative small business definition, 
agencies must consult with the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, EPA considered small entities to be public water 
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. This is the cut-off level 
specified by Congress in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water 
Act for small system flexibility provisions. In accordance with the RFA 
requirements, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the 
Federal Register (63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998), requested public 
comment, consulted with the Small Business Administration (SBA), and 
expressed its intention to use the alternative definition for all 
future drinking water regulations in the Consumer Confidence Reports 
regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998). As stated in that final 
rule, the alternative definition would be applied to this proposed 
regulation as well.
    This proposed rule imposes no cost on any entities over and above 
those imposed by previously published drinking water rules. This action 
corrects and clarifies existing regulations. The optional monitoring 
for disinfection profiling provides flexibility for PWSs complying with 
LT1ESWTR. The earlier compliance date will not increase the cost of 
complying with LT1ESWTR since the monitoring and reporting requirements 
are unchanged. By specifying the detection limit for uranium, States 
have the flexibility to waive some monitoring for PWSs with samples 
below the detection limit. This action does not add new requirements.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.

[[Page 9787]]

    Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. This proposed rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the 
private sector. This action corrects and clarifies existing 
regulations. The optional monitoring for disinfection profiling 
provides flexibility for PWSs to comply with LT1ESWTR. The earlier 
compliance date will not increase the cost of complying with LT1ESWTR 
since the monitoring and reporting requirements are unchanged. By 
specifying the detection limit for uranium, States have the flexibility 
to waive some monitoring for PWSs with samples below the detection 
limit. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. This proposed rule imposes no enforceable duty on any 
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action 
corrects and clarifies existing regulations. Thus, today's proposed 
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. There is no cost to State and 
local governments, and the proposed rule does not preempt State law. 
This action corrects and clarifies existing regulations. The optional 
monitoring for disinfection profiling provides flexibility for PWSs to 
comply with LT1ESWTR. The earlier compliance date will not increase the 
cost of complying with LT1ESWTR since the monitoring and reporting 
requirements are unchanged. By specifying the detection limit for 
uranium, States have the flexibility to waive some monitoring for PWSs 
with samples below the detection limit. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 
13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between 
EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment 
on this proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
There is no cost to tribal governments, and the proposed rule does not 
preempt tribal law. This action corrects and clarifies existing 
regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy 
to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. 
Further, it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk 
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve any new technical 
standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

    Chemicals, Environmental protection, Indians-lands, 
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

[[Page 9788]]

40 CFR Part 142

    Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Indians-lands, 
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water 
supply.

    Dated: February 24, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.


Sec.  141.25  [Amended]

    2. Section 141.25(c)(1) is amended in the entry for uranium in 
Table B by revising the word ``reserved'' to read ``1 [mu]g/L''.


Sec.  141.26  [Amended]

    3. Section 141.26 is amended as follows:
    a. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and (b)(5); and
    b. In paragraph (b)(6) revise the citation ``(b)(1)(ii)'' to read 
``(b)(1)(i)'' and revise the citation ``(b)(2)(i)'' to read 
``(b)(2)(iv)'' as follows:


Sec.  141.26  Monitoring frequency and compliance requirements for 
radionuclides in community water systems.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) If the gross beta particle activity minus the naturally 
occurring potassium-40 beta particle activity at a sampling point has a 
running annual average (computed quarterly) less than or equal to 15 
pCi/L (screening level), the State may reduce the frequency of 
monitoring at that sampling point to every 3 years. Systems must 
collect the same type of samples required in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section during the reduced monitoring period.
* * * * *
    (5) If the gross beta particle activity minus the naturally 
occurring potassium-40 beta particle activity exceeds the appropriate 
screening level, an analysis of the sample must be performed to 
identify the major radioactive constituents present in the sample and 
the appropriate doses must be calculated and summed to determine 
compliance with Sec.  141.66(d)(1), using the formula in Sec.  
141.66(d)(2), or Table E in Sec.  141.66(d). Doses must also be 
calculated and combined for measured levels of tritium and strontium to 
determine compliance.
* * * * *


Sec.  141.62  [Amended]

    4. Section 141.62(c) is amended as follows:
    a. In the Table ``BAT for inorganic compounds listed in section 
141.62(b)'' amend the entry for ``cyanide'' by replacing the ``10'' 
with ``13''; and
    b. In the list ``Key to BATS in Table 1'', add to the end of the 
list as follows: ``13 = Alkaline Chlorination (pH = 8.5)''.


Sec.  141.71  [Amended]

    5. Section 141.71 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text revise the citation 
``Sec.  141.74(a)(4)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)''; and
    b. In paragraph (c)(2)(i) revise the citation ``Sec.  
141.74(a)(4)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)''.


Sec.  141.72  [Amended]

    6. Section 141.72 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(3) revise the citation ``Sec.  141.74(a)(5)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(2)'';
    b. In paragraph (a)(4)(i) revise the citation ``Sec.  
141.74(a)(5)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(2)'' and revise the citation 
``Sec.  141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)'';
    c. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii) revise the citation ``Sec.  
141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)'';
    d. In paragraph (b)(2) revise the citation ``Sec.  141.74(a)(5)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(2)'';
    e. In paragraph (b)(3)(i) revise the citation ``Sec.  
141.74(a)(5)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(2)'', and revise the citation 
``Sec.  141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)''; and
    f. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii) revise the citation ``Sec.  
141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)''.


Sec.  141.73  [Amended]

    7. Section 141.73 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(1) revise the citation ``Sec.  141.74(a)(4)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)'';
    b. In paragraph (a)(2) revise the citation ``Sec.  141.74(a)(4)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)'';
    c. In paragraph (b)(1) revise the citation ``Sec.  141.74(a)(4)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)'';
    d. In paragraph (b)(2) revise the citation ``Sec.  141.74(a)(4)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)'';
    e. In paragraph (c)(1) revise the citation ``Sec.  141.74(a)(4)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)''; and
    f. In paragraph (c)(2) revise the citation ``Sec.  141.74(a)(4)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)''.


Sec.  141.74  [Amended]

    8. Section 141.74 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii) revise the citation ``Sec.  142.72(a)'' 
to read ``Sec.  141.72(a)'';
    b. In paragraph (b)(6)(ii) revise the citation ``(a)(3)'' to read 
``(a)(1)'';
    c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) revise the citation ``(a)(3)'' to read 
``(a)(1)''; and
    d. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii) revise the citation ``(a)(3)'' to read 
``(a)(1)''.


Sec.  141.75  Amended

    9. Section 141.75 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(G) revise the citation ``Sec.  
141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)''; and
    b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(G) revise the citation ``Sec.  
141.74(a)(3)'' to read ``Sec.  141.74(a)(1)''.
    10. Section 141.132 is amended in paragraph (a)(5) by removing the 
reference to ``or subpart M of this part''.
    11. In Sec.  141.133 revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.133  Compliance requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) If, during the first year of monitoring under Sec.  141.132, 
any individual quarter's average will cause the running annual average 
of that system to exceed the MCL for total trihalomethanes, haloacetic 
acids (five), or bromate; or the MRDL for chlorine or chloramine, the 
system is out of compliance at the end of that quarter.
* * * * *
    12. In Sec.  141.174 revise the first sentence of paragraph (a) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  141.174  Filtration sampling requirements.

    (a) * * * In addition to monitoring required by Sec.  141.74, a 
public water system subject to the requirements of this subpart that 
provides conventional filtration treatment or direct filtration must 
conduct continuous monitoring of turbidity for each individual filter 
using an approved method in Sec.  141.74(a) and must calibrate 
turbidimeters using the procedure specified by the manufacturer and by 
using analytical test procedures contained in Technical Notes on 
Drinking Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-173, October 1994. * * *
* * * * *
    13. In subpart Q, Appendix A is amended as follows:

[[Page 9789]]

    a. In entry I.A.(8) revise the citation in the third column 
``141.76'' to read ``141.76(c)'' and the citation in the fifth column 
``141.76'' to read ``141.76 (b), (d)''.
    b. Amend endnote 1 by removing the words ``reporting violations 
and'' from the first parenthetical phrase.
    14. In subpart Q, Appendix B revise endnotes 4 and 8 to read as 
follows:

Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141--Standard Health Effects Language 
for Public Notification

* * * * *
    \4\ There are various regulations that set turbidity standards 
for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, and the 
1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule, the 1998 Interim Enhanced Surface 
Water Treatment Rule and the 2002 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule. The MCL for the monthly turbidity average is 1 NTU; 
the MCL for the 2-day average is 5 NTU for systems that are required 
to filter but have not yet installed filtration (40 CFR 141.13).
* * * * *
    \8\ There are various regulations that set turbidity standards 
for different types of systems, including 40 CFR 141.13, the 1989 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), the 1998 Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the 2002 Long Term 1 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR). For systems 
subject to the IESWTR (systems serving at least 10,000 people, using 
surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface 
water), that use conventional filtration or direct filtration, after 
January 1, 2002, the turbidity level of a system's combined filter 
effluent may not exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly 
measurements, and the turbidity level of a system's combined filter 
effluent must not exceed 1 NTU at any time. Systems subject to the 
IESWTR using technologies other than conventional, direct, slow 
sand, or diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity limits 
set by the primacy agency. For systems subject to the LT1ESWTR 
(systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, using surface water or 
ground water under the direct influence of surface water) that use 
conventional filtration or direct filtration, after January 1, 2005 
the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent may not 
exceed 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of monthly measurements, and 
the turbidity level of a system's combined filter effluent must not 
exceed 1 NTU at any time. Systems subject to the LT1ESWTR using 
technologies other than conventional, direct, slow sand, or 
diatomaceous earth filtration must meet turbidity limits set by the 
primacy agency.
* * * * *
    15. Revise Sec.  141.502 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.502  When must my system comply with these requirements?

    You must comply with these requirements in this subpart beginning 
January 1, 2005, except where otherwise noted.
    16. In Sec.  141.530 in the second sentence, revise ``water 
systems'' to read ``water system''.
    17. Amend Sec.  141.531 by adding the following sentence to the end 
of the section, to read as follows:


Sec.  141.531  What criteria must a State use to determine that a 
profile is unnecessary?

    * * * Your State may approve a more representative TTHM and HAA5 
data set to determine these levels.
    18. Section 141.534 is amended as follows:
    a. By revising the introductory paragraph,
    b. In the table in paragraph (a)(2), revise the ``3'' to read 
``[Sigma]''.


Sec.  141.534  How does my system use this data to calculate an 
inactivation ratio?

    Use the tables in Sec.  141.74(b)(3)(v) to determine the 
appropriate CT99.9 value. Calculate the total inactivation ratio as 
follows, and multiply the value by 3.0 to determine log inactivation of 
Giardia lamblia:
* * * * *


Sec.  141.551  [Amended]

    19. Section 141.551 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(2) revise ``no'' to read ``not''; and
    b. In paragraph (b)(2) revise ``''Alternative``'' to read 
``Alternative Filtration''.
    20. In Sec.  141.560, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  141.560  Is my system subject to individual filter turbidity 
requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) Calibration of turbidimeters must be conducted using procedures 
specified by the manufacturer and by analytical test procedures 
contained in Technical Notes on Drinking Water Methods, EPA-600/R-94-
173, October 1994.
* * * * *


141.563  [Amended]

    21. Section 141.563 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b) remove the last sentence in the second column 
of the table, and
    b. In paragraph (c) revise ``BTU'' to read ``NTU'' in the first 
column of the table.
    22. In Sec.  141.570, revise paragraph (b)(2) in the table to read 
as follows:


Sec.  141.570  What does subpart T require that my system report to the 
State?

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Description of
   Corresponding requirement     information to report      Frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
(b) Individual Filter
 Turbidity Requirements
(Sec.  Sec.   141.560-141.564)
                                (2) The filter          By the 10th of
                                 number(s),              the following
                                 corresponding           month.
                                 date(s), and the
                                 turbidity value(s)
                                 which exceeded 1.0
                                 NTU during the month,
                                 and the cause (if
                                 known) for the
                                 exceedance(s), but
                                 only if 2 consecutive
                                 measurements exceeded
                                 1.0 NTU.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

    23. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.


Sec.  142.14  [Amended]

    24. Section 142.14 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (d)(12)(iv) revise the citation ``Sec.  
142.16(f)(2)'' to read ``Sec.  142.16(h)(2)''; and
    b. In paragraph (d)(13) revise the citation ``Sec.  142.16(f)(5)'' 
to read ``Sec.  142.16(h)(5)''.

[[Page 9790]]

Sec.  142.16  [Amended]

    25. Section 142.16 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (l)(2) revise the citation ``Sec.  142.16 (e)(5)'' 
to read ``Sec.  142.16 (e)(2)'';
    b. Redesignate paragraph (j) which was added on January 14, 2002, 
at 67 FR 1812 as paragraph (p); and
    c. In paragraph (p)(2)(ii) revise the citation ``141.536'' to read 
``141.535''.
    26. Section 142.62(g)(2) is amended by revising the citation 
``103.35'' to read ``165.110''.
[FR Doc. 04-4464 Filed 3-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P